Skip to content

Doctors must provide ‘effective referrals’ for medical services they oppose on religious grounds: Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2019 ONCA 393

Health Group, Christopher Goodridge and Matthew Jacobs

The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in a decision released on May 15, 2019 that doctors must provide an ‘effective referral’ where they are unwilling to provide care on moral or religious grounds. The appeal required the court to reconcile a patients’ access to medical services and a physicians’ freedom to refuse to participate in services which they have religious objections – conflicting individual liberties.

What is an effective referral?

An effective referral is defined as “a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician, other health-care professional, or agency.”¹

Ontario Superior Court Decision – January 31, 2018

The Ontario Superior Court upheld a College of Physician and Surgeon of Ontario’s policy on ‘effective referrals’. The policy required all physicians who object to providing medical treatment (such as assisted dying and abortion) to provide an effective referral, regardless of moral or religious beliefs. The policies did not require physicians to personally provide the services to which they object, except in an emergency where it is necessary to prevent imminent harm to a patient.

The appellants were individual physicians and organizations representing physicians in Ontario that challenged the policies on the ground that the effective referral requirements infringe their freedom of conscience and religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the requirements oblige them to be complicit in procedures that offend their religious beliefs. The appellants also claimed that the effective referral requirements discriminate against physicians based on their religions, thus infringing their s. 15(1) equality rights.

The Court found that while the policies infringe their freedom of religion, the infringement is justified under s. 1 of the Charter, because the policies are reasonable limits, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The Divisional Court did not consider whether freedom of conscience is engaged. It dismissed the s. 15(1) claim in its entirety.

Ontario Court of Appeal – May 15, 2019

Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Ontario Superior Court, affirming the constitutionality of the ‘effective referral’ requirements imposed on doctors by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. The ‘effective referral’ was found to be fundamental for the trust that must exist in the physician-patient relationship, physicians acting as navigators for health care services for their patients.

Strathy C.J., writing for the three judge panel, ruled unanimously that the s. 7 Charter protected right of patients in Ontario to equitable access to medical services outweighs a doctors’ freedom to refuse to participate in any way in services which conflict with their Charter protected religious view.

Key takeaways

  • The ruling reaffirms that in a publicly funded healthcare system, physicians are required to place the interests of their patients care ahead of their moral or religious values in the event of a conflict.
  • This decision does not address hospitals or health authorities’ obligations to provide effective referrals. That said, health-care providers should be mindful of the courts insights in drafting their health-care service policies.
  • Finally, while the decision does not change the position that the Charter does not provide any positive rights to health care, where the government has a system in place to provide specific health care services, it must comply with the Charter.

¹ Policy Statement #4-16, entitled “Medical Assistance in Dying”, refers to “nurse practitioner” in place of “other health-care professional


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Health team.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Where there’s smoke, there may be coverage: an insurer’s obligation to indemnify for medical cannabis

July 14, 2017

Jon O’Kane and Jamie Watson Legal cannabis will have numerous implications for insurers. The federal Cannabis Act (discussed here), the provincial acts (discussed here) and the regulations (discussed here) are all going to add layers…

Read More

Client Update: Driving high – the future is hazy for Canadian automobile insurers once cannabis goes legal

July 6, 2017

Vasu Sivapalan and Ben Whitney Legalized and regulated cannabis is on track to become a reality in Canada in just under a year (on or before July 1, 2018). This will create a number of…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick – update

June 29, 2017

Further to our Client Update on June 15 titled, “Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick”, the deadline for initial registration under the Lobbyists’ Registration Act of New Brunswick has been extended from…

Read More

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top